The Role of Resilience in Maintaining Religious Identity—The Life Story of a Nun

Abstract

In Hungary, the monastic orders were dissolved in 1950 during the harshest communist dictatorship. A total of 11,538 people were affected by the ban. The consequences of the dissolution of the monastic orders not only affected the people who were directly involved but also practically the whole society. The orders had an important role on the education, society and culture of the country, and their banning for ideological reasons had enormous consequences. The question is how dissolved monks and nuns managed to integrate into a society where they were marginalized. Through the life story of a nun, named Speravia (1914–2009), I present the behavioral patterns which helped to survive the persecution of religion during communism and then in socialism. I found that she maintained her religious identity through change and resilient means. Identity maintenance in modern society is a dynamic process in which there is room for change through constant adaptation to the environment. Her obedience was transformed into accommodation to the political system by making deals with the system. This behavior can be called resilience. Resilient behavior is characterized by both resistance and accommodation. To do this, she had to be active and have the support of her environment. In this study, I used the principles of Grounded Theory, which is a specific content analysis method. I analyzed the interview using the Grounded Theory approach, at least some of its techniques. I coded some parts of the interview line by line and other parts only as units of thought. Then, I aggregated the codes and I formulated categories. After this process, I compared the meanings of the categories and it became clear to me that my interviewee’s behavior could be understood as resilient. This is why I emphasized the role of resilience in identity maintenance in the title of the study. My conclusion is that while Sperávia flexibly adapted to the new political system, she could also preserve her identity as a nun. I call this survival strategy religious resilience.

“The class teacher’s lessons were such that I just didn’t pronounce God’s name …”.

1. Introduction

In Hungary, 1950 was the period of the toughest communist dictatorship, when the monastic orders were dissolved. At that time, a total of 63 orders were registered, of which 23 were male (2582 monks) and 40 female (8956 nuns) (Bögre 2021; Fejérdy 2021; Révay 2003). A total of 11,538 persons were directly affected by the banning of orders. This was little more than one thousandth of the contemporary population, so we could rightly say that this decision was merely about a religious minority, both in relation to the Hungarian Catholic church and Hungarian society. However, this is only an appearance, as the orders played an educational, social and cultural role in the country. Thus, the consequence of their dissolution not only affected the people involved and the church, but it had enormous consequences for society as a whole.

The question arises as to what a monastic community or a religious person (monk or sister) can do when society persecutes and then marginalizes the cultivation of religious identity on a macro level. In Hungary, this situation lasted for a total of 40 years, including a political dictatorship, and then, after it eased, an authoritarian regime emerged.

The closer question is how could a monk or sister who had been deprived of their vocation continue to live, and how did they manage to fit into the society where they had to conceal their views and vocation, which were completely opposed to what was expected? In a broader sense, I am looking for the answer to what behavioral patterns are available for us if our way of thinking is not tolerable for the reigning politics?

Without exploring the past, we cannot understand our society or our church. This scholarly work has already begun in Hungary, and important work has been carried out on the subject, either in the field of survey statistics, (Rosta 2020; Rosta and Hegedűs 2016; Tomka 2011) in the field of historical studies, (Cúthné Gyóni 2022a, 2022b; Fejérdy 2021; Szabó 2021; Wirthné Diera 2021), or at the theoretical level (Figus-Illinyi 2024).

However, we are still in need of a scientific analysis of the perspectives of those involved. Much work remains to be carried out in this field. My research work and this study try to fill this gap by using a qualitative method, by analyzing a life story, to show how religious identity was preserved under the communist dictatorship. Sperávia’s life story is one of the qualitative research collections compiled in the framework of a religion and identity project lasting several years.1 This story was chosen because many survival techniques can be identified in it which are typical of Hungarian conditions at the time.

During the period of communism, if an individual or a group wanted to define their own identity opposing the political system, they had to balance between adaptation and resistance. I identified this behavior as a typically resilient survival strategy.

2. Context of Results

2.1. The Interpretative Framework: Resilience

The study is based on sister Sperávia’s life story, and during its analysis I came to the concept of resilience: a concept that provides an excellent framework for the interpretation of the phenomena and processes I examine (see Supplementary Materials). In the previous sentence, I consciously used the term ‘came to’, thereby indicating that the starting point of the research was not the search for the concept of resilience in religious life history, but the other way around. The research originally focused on ‘understanding the development of religious identity under dictatorial conditions’. I will return to the explanation of this epistemological question in the section discussing the methodology; for now, it is enough to indicate that the applicability of the concept of resilience arose during the analysis of the sources.

The Latin origin of the word resilience is ‘relisio’, which means contraction, rebound, shrinkage.2 In the 20th and 21st centuries, the concept became a widely used term in scientific discourse, and it is now essential in many scientific fields, such as ecology, security science, child psychology, or sociology.

In theoretical studies, the authors usually highlight one element of the concept, but in an empirical analysis, its extremely complex nature becomes apparent (Figus-Illinyi 2024). For empirical researchers, it is evident that the more concrete and deeper an analysis is made of a social phenomenon, the more complex the concept of resilience becomes.

Resilience can be briefly defined as the ability of a person or a community to respond to hardship and trauma in a flexible way and with resistance. The purpose of this flexible resistance is that people who are involved can maintain their identity while developing a new behavior or a new structure in order to survive (Figus-Illinyi 2024; László 2024; Raab et al. 2015; Székely 2015; Zautra and Hall 2010). In other words, ‘Resistance emerging as a result of shock, which leads to functional survival’ (Szokolszky and Komlósi 2015, p. 12). However, it is important to note that when an individual or a community functions well and responds adequately to the environment, it cannot be called resilience, because this could be a result of a proper family, educational or financial background (Zautra and Hall 2010). Resilient behavior can only be observed during regeneration after trauma or shock.

On a theoretical level, Bourbeau and Ryan (2018) distinguish between three types of resilience. According to one type, a community or a person is resilient when it returns to its original state after some shock, which is called ‘bouncing back’. Another type is when the structure adapts to the changed conditions through ‘fine-tuning’. Adaptation in this case is gradual and happens by swinging back and forth. We can talk about the third type when after the shock or crisis a new state of equilibrium develops. The latter type can (also) mean a radical reorganization, when significant changes can develop in the community/individual compared to the previous state.

According to the constructivist approach to resilience, resistance and resilience can be considered complementary notions. There are certain social situations where resistance and adaptation emerge one after the other or simultaneously in the individual’s life, which suggests that it is worth examining the time factor as well (Bourbeau 2018; Bourbeau and Ryan 2018).

Here, it is worth mentioning the Hungarian characteristic that is related to the interpretation of the term resilience. Since there is no one-word Hungarian equivalent of the word (resilience), certain authors explain it as flexible adaptation and others as flexible resistance, which is partly the result of the concept being unclear and partly the result of the concept’s duality (László 2022). As I indicated above, resistance and flexible adaptation can be closely related to each other under certain circumstances, and this may be the reason for the two uses of the term.

In relation to resilience, it frequently comes up whether it is a gift or a quality of a person/community, or does it develop as a result of a shock? In other words, does resilience emerge after trauma because the individual or the community reacts flexibly and resists? Or is it a pre-existing trait activated as a result of the traumatic event? The question has not yet been decided, but according to many resilience researchers, the former answer is valid (Luthar et al. 2000; Ögtem-Young 2018). This is also supported by the argument that if resilience were (only) a matter of aptitude, then the person or the community would hardly be able to undergo major changes during the survival strategy. Empirical research proves that resilience is a process involving a change in individual identity. The person or the community goes through certain learning and self-developing processes during flexible resistance. All of this requires the individual’s activity and foresight, as well as supportive people surrounding the individual (Berszán 2015; Székely 2015).

Examination of the relationship between religiosity and resilient behavior3 has been involved in many areas of sociology, such as mental health, family relationships, childhood abuse, young people’s coping with parental mental illness, and old age and religiosity (Davydow et al. 2010; Manning 2014). More recently, the use of the concept of religion and resilience is also present in the research of everyday life, and thus resilience research took a new direction, in a double sense. On the one hand, it deals with the role of religious faith in everyday life; on the other hand, it goes beyond the canon that relates resilience only to deeply shocking, fatal and traumatic circumstances (Lenette et al. 2012; Ögtem-Young 2018).

Empirical research confirms the findings of Pargament and Cummings (2010), according to which the more religious a person is, the greater the chance that religion will become a resource for them in crises and traumas. At the same time, it should also be noted that the positive role of religiosity in resilience is identified mostly in the case of internalized religiosity, as stated in the research of Ögtem-Young (2018). The same cannot be said about external religiosity. In the latter case, religion can also convey fears and negative emotions, or it can turn social groups against each other.

2.2. The Historical Context of the Research (1860–1950)

In a nutshell, it is worth summarizing the history of the monastic order to which Sperávia belonged to.

In 1860, nuns who arrived in Hungary founded the Society of the School Sisters of Kalocsa, named after Our Lady4 (Bangó 2000, p. 9; Puskely 1996, p. 696). The order considered the education of daughters in poor families to be its main mission. At that time, this initiative was unique in Hungary. The order became popular, so the number of members grew rapidly. The order, which initially consisted of 12 people, doubled in a few years, and by the end of the 1880s it had reached 100 members; in 1947, there were over 900 members (Kőfalviné Ónodi 2020, p. 34). The order was active in the field of education, which throughout history was always opposed by the communist government. The order’s educational activities were first threatened in 1919, when the Hungarian Soviet Republic5 forbade the monks and nuns to run a school. If they wanted to continue teaching, they would have had to give up their monastic vocation.

The school sisters did not compromise; they would rather have stopped teaching than give up their monastic clothes. This process was interrupted due to the fall of the Hungarian Soviet Republic. An even harsher period followed in 1948, when after the communist takeover, all church schools were nationalized, and the religious orders were stripped of the right to teach, and their buildings were also taken away. Only those monks and nuns who renounced their monastic vocation could remain in the education system. Because of that, none of the school sisters continued teaching. In addition to their professional dedication, this decision was also supported by the fact that in 1949 Cardinal József Mindszenty prohibited monks and sisters from teaching in public schools, under the threat of excommunication. As far as we know, this decree was never revoked, even though the excommunication could no longer be enforced in the light of what happened later (Szabó 2021).

In 1948, after the nationalization of the church schools, the school sisters lost all their institutions.6 The order survived this atrocity. At that time, they only lost their schools, but not the community of their order. However, the political persecution of religious orders continued to increase, and in 1950 all religious orders were banned, except for four: three male and one female order were given the right to keep two secondary schools each. It became an important question as to who would be willing to maintain a church high school in the midst of religious persecution. It was entrusted to the Hungarian Catholic Episcopal Faculty to make a proposal, which was finally approved by the leaders of the Communist Party.

The School Sisters of Kalocsa were also among the potential candidates, but the provincial head of the order categorically refused the bishop’s request. Based on the principle ‘either everyone gets a chance, or no one!’, they did not continue education in the communist dictatorship. Instead, they also joined their companions in distress: those who had to suffer the complete dissolution.

The nearly 1000 school sisters from Kalocsa moved to different parts of the country after 1950, and everyone survived as they could. During the persecution, the superiors tried to keep in touch with the sisters. As a result of their work to maintain the community, they were able to keep a few dozen nuns together, but the majority remained alone.

Looking at the data, the following can be concluded about the effect of dissolution. The Society of School Sisters of Kalocsa named after Our Lady was one of the most populous female orders in Hungary in 1950. The number of nuns at that time was 943. During the 40 years of the dissolution, their number gradually decreased, and by 1989, at the time of the political system change, only 241 nuns remained, of whom 158 lived in Hungary. Among them, only 64 nuns were of working age. Today, there are only seven School Sisters of Kalocsa, and most of them live in the order’s nursing home7 (Radnai and Mészáros 2020; Sági 2021, p. 665).

3. Methods

The life story of the nun presented in this study was collected during multi-year qualitative research in the sociology of religion.8 Sperávia’s life story, as I indicated above, can be considered typical in the sense that it shows general patterns of behavior that many of her companions in distress could have spoken about. Sperávia’s life story stood out from the rest because many of these typical behavior patterns occurred in it. The first important methodological question is to clarify the connection between life history and identity, because this also explains why a single life history can be considered to represent a single period.

The answer begins with the fact that individuals in modern society cannot define themselves by a single social position or birth status as they could in pre-modern times. In an ever-changing society, an individual’s identity is not static, but the result of a dynamic process. In the modern–postmodern age, the individual has multiple identities that are most characterized by a process of change–preservation. In this case, it is legitimate to ask how is identity expressed and how can we express who we really are? According to Kohli (1981), the life course is the regulatory system in which the temporal dimension of an individual’s life is arranged. The life course can be thought of as a way in which individual identities are manifested in time. According to this view, we think (Fischer-Rosenthal 2005; Kohli 2005) that life stories can be understood as identity stories, in which the cultural patterns of the given era are present in a unique way. Social roles, behaviors, and socialization processes are all social products that the individual internalizes in certain stages of life (Bögre 2018; Fischer-Rosenthal 2005; Kovács and Vajda 2007). Let us see what the constructivist sociologist Fisher-Rosental has to say.

“Biography as a self-producing, autopoietic structure and biographical work as activity provides a web of possible interpretations of the world and individual’s experience—A web which transcends the simplified duality of identity, of belonging or not-belonging. In terms of group identifications, biography enables non-dualistic relations whereby an individual can identify and not identify with a particular group, nation or culture simultaneously. …It becomes possible to tell a coherent story as a shared history entailing different kinds of identification with the world at different points in an individual’s life…. By constructing a biography, a person can discover who he or she has become. By reconstructing these processes, biographical research generates knowledge about both the individual and society” (Fischer-Rosenthal 2005, pp. 222–23). In this sense, when we talk about life stories, we do not just get to know the life of a person, but also the cultural patterns of the era in which the individual’s life took place.

Another important question is the epistemological approach according to which the life story was analyzed. In this case, I followed the methodology of Grounded Theory, which is an analysis that concentrates on the text (Corbin and Strauss 2014; Strauss and Corbin 2015).

In some places, I coded the life history of Speravia line by line; in others, I considered text sequences as a single unit and coded then aggregated the codes by topic and formulated categories that best summarized what I understood from what was said. The categories became the subheadings of the life story. It was from the totality of the categories that the concept of resilience emerged for me, and it is for this reason that I have written above that I arrived at the concept of resilience in the course of my analysis.9

The research was informed by a constructivist epistemology in the collection and analysis of data. The final result of the study is partly an interpretation of the respondent’s self-image. This means that the researcher interprets the subject’s interpretation, recognizing the importance of the subject’s role in the research.

Sperávia was recommended to me by one of her former students, when the student learned that I was looking for nuns who secretly maintained their vocation after the dispersion. The fact that the interview was conducted on the recommendation of a former student also means that the students not only knew that Sperávia was a nun, but that they also remembered her fondly. This research element became important during the analysis because it confirmed everything that Sperávia wanted to convey during her life story.

4. Discussion

4.1. Obedience

Sperávia described her childhood family as “wonderful”, portraying them as people from whom she could learn values that determined her entire life. In addition to her parents, she used similar words (e.g., idealistic) about her teacher training monks and nuns, religious superiors and one of her university professors. In other words, she spoke highly of everyone she considered her mentor. On the other hand, she portrayed herself as an excitable, obedient and sensitive child, which was also associated with a weak physique. Sperávia connected to the world of adults through obedience.

‘Our parents demanded so much obedience from us: If the church clock strikes at 5:30, then you have to be at home! I hurried across the meadow so that I would be home by the time. I learned true obedience, adaptability, and loving service from my parents.’

Sperávia in this story followed her parents’ rules without consideration. The text revealed that obedience was not difficult for her as a child: her family expected it from her, which she took for granted. In a later story, Sperávia’s new character trait appeared.

‘I finished the four-grade elementary school, then the four state civics. I took home the honors certificate and told my father and mother: I would like to either be a kindergarten teacher or a teacher, the educator of many.’

Here, the parents no longer dictated but instead listened to their daughter’s wishes—she could tell them her plans for her future. It was not easy to fulfill Sperávia’s dreams for a family living in decent poverty; we can conclude this from the fact that the family was only able to spend 20 pengő (Hungarian currency of the time) on education. Even without going into details about the educational conditions of the time, it can be assumed that this was not enough for schooling. Nevertheless, the father set out to find a school with his daughter, presumably because of Sperávia’s intransigence and perhaps also to prove to his daughter that she was asking for the impossible. However, things turned out differently.

‘In Budapest, there was no chance for me at all for that amount of money. In Félegyháza, the headmistress told me that nobody can be a student for that much money. I also walked out in tears in Kecskemét, they didn’t accept me there either. The fifth place we visited was Kalocsa. I took the 4-grade state civil school certificate, it was rated excellent. My father was amazed when the good Dr. Mátyás Pál admitted me into a huge monastery. I found out the truth at the end of the fifth year. My class teacher told me to thank the principal for his kindness. I knocked on the door and said: thank you very much for your five years of kindness.—It’s okay, I taught you the same way as the others. I went back saying that there is nothing to thank for!—Then I’ll tell you: for five years, he made up the missing amount for your dormitory fee every month, which was 200 pengő instead of 20. That’s how I became a teacher.’

In this story, we can identify another feature of Szperávia’s character. We can see that if she wanted something, she was persistent. It turned out that she and her father knocked on the doors of many of Hungary’s teacher training schools (several places in Budapest, Kecskemét, and finally in Kalocsa) until they were finally successful. Miraculously, she was admitted to Kalocsa,10 but for a long time she knew nothing about the background of how it happened. We could also say that Sperávia was naive, and because of this she did not look for the reason why she was admitted to the teacher training school in Kalocsa. However, this assumption is refuted by her comment that ‘that’s how I became a teacher’. This statement implies that she should also thank the Sisters of Kalocsa for what she achieved. The story also revealed that the teachers knew that Sperávia received support for five years, but they did not let her know this during her studies. She was neither looked down upon nor singled out, at least Sperávia did not perceive it.

‘The poor School Sisters of Kalocsa, named after Our Lady, were wonderful and ideal educators… I really loved the sacrament of the altar. Whenever there were breaks, we always went down the hall and prayed for a successful oral test. Around the end of the fourth year, I began to feel that I was exchanging earthly love for heavenly love.’

Now we have learned that Sperávia was not naive, but an idealistic person, in whom monastic commitment began to unfold. It is likely that seeing this, the principal of the school was convinced that he supported the right person.

When she took home her teacher training diploma, she told her parents again how she had decided on her future life.

‘I took my teacher training certificate home on a large sheet of paper, my father looked at it and said: It’s okay, my little girl, I’m very happy that I have a daughter who is a teacher. They didn’t know what my intention was. By then, my decision was completely certain. At that time, I already asked the head of the order for a declaration of parental consent.11 My mother and father looked at my diploma with admiration. Then I asked them to read the parental consent [to enter the monastic order]. My mother fell on the table and cried. My father hugged her: Look, if she goes there with all her heart, we should let her go. They both signed it. I sent it back’

Although Sperávia began her life story by explaining that her parents ‘demanded obedience so much’ that she tried to follow the rules while running, the stories also show that she made life-long decisions without consulting her parents. This story suggests that Sperávia’s obedience changed direction. First, it was directed towards the parents, then the teachers, and later the Sisters of Kalocsa. The parents signed the document in 1928, and, as Sperávia stated, she did not visit home until 1950, when the orders were dispersed.

4.2. Challenges of Obedience

In the stories about the candidate year and the novitiate, the question of obedience came up again. This virtue also had an important role in Sperávia’s monastic identity, and it was not by chance that she explained a lot about it.

‘The novitiate was strict, 23 of us were admitted at the same time. Then we learned the rules of order, we were only allowed to talk among ourselves. There were also challenges. For example, we had to go to the big dining room in front of the sisters and kneel: I apologize for breaking a mug. I had never been to an apology before. Once I wrote musical notation, and the novice master said: only Sister Sperávia can do this kind of work.—I asked: should I write it again?—What a waste of time!—The others laughed because they knew it was a challenge.—She’s going to apologize!—I went to apologize for writing notes badly. This was my only challenge.’

Sperávia also demonstrated with the story of the fake punishment for writing musical notation that she spent her time in an environment that accepted her and knew her well. ‘This was my only test during the novitiate’; this is a statement that seems to be immediately refuted in another narrative.

After the novitiate, Sperávia wanted to work as a teacher in a village school, but the head of the order had other plans for her.

‘At Christmas, our superior visited us. 23 of us stood there in a semicircle. Mother Aqvina (the superior) said: I already know the disposition (relocation) of Sister Sperávia: I will send her to Szeged to major in mathematics and physics.—I stood there straight and said, uncertainly: Yes, God bless you!—My tears just flowed. I couldn’t wait for her to leave. I cried for at least an hour afterwards. After that, as if nothing had happened, I lived knowing this until the end of the year, in the name of holy obedience.’

Sperávia planned her future differently, but no one was interested. Even from the perspective of 50 years, she told without criticism that she accepted the decision about her in tears. Not by chance. This accepting tone can be justified not only by the obedience of the young nun but also by what was revealed later. She was able to remain a teacher [as we can see it later in the text] after the dissolution of the order due to her graduation in mathematics and physics.

Continuing her life story, from 1935 she studied at college and university in Szeged at the same time, which was the only way she could complete both majors. These were difficult years for her.

‘I had to study in advance in the summer. We took notes there, we didn’t even have a book, or anything else. What the professor wrote on the blackboard, I often worked half the night to remember it the next day, because he asked us about that. It was mathematics, and in physics I had to take the exam later in order to become a teacher training teacher.’

As it turned out, her classmate, a boy named László, noticed her at the university not only as a student, but also as a young woman.

‘I definitely wanted to marry you, but I didn’t tell you out of respect.—I wouldn’t have changed it anyway, I told him.’ Because then I already made the eternal vow. I became a sister with all my heart and soul. I consider heavenly love to be greater. It was also a huge help later on.’

The meaning of this story is not only that she wanted to show her strong devotion to her monastic vows. It is also a message that she remained a nun while others married after the dissolution.

4.3. Testing the Limits of Obedience

After graduating from university, she moved to a village, where she could teach mathematics and physics in the school. She arrived in Hőgyész in 1939, right before the historical storm in Hungarian society, and stayed there until 1947. In addition to her profession as a teacher, her social sensibility developed here, the origin of which she linked more to the values brought from her parents’ house than to the norms of the order.

Sperávia had the courage to criticize her order only in two cases, when speaking about the period she spent in Hőgyész. In one of her stories, she touched on the role of the sisters of Hőgyész in World War II. ‘We cared for sick soldiers. Only two of us among the 30 sisters volunteered’. The sentences could also be interpreted as self-praise, but due to the context, this can be disregarded. Rather, she questioned the social sensibility of fellow sisters with the sentence that ‘the two of us volunteered’.

In the other case, she made a remark in relation to one of the rules of the order. ‘In the past, school sisters were not allowed to go outside. A sister should not care what is out there, just teach. If you have free time, pray or do needlework… It’s different today.’

Speravia did not respect this rule. Regarding her years in Hőgyész, she said that she visited the village even after teaching, because the suffering of the population after the war was indescribable. At that time, the cloistering of the school sisters was strict—the sisters could not leave the convent without the permission of the superior (Sági 2021). Despite this, Sperávia regularly visited the families of her students, providing them with spiritual support. During this time, the deportation of people of German nationality took place in the country, as well as the resettlement of the formerly poor Csángos, and the abduction of village youth by Russian soldiers. There was not a single family that did not suffer tragedy in the war or after the war. She could not do much, but she could bring water to German families condemned to deportation when they were locked in wagons at the station for two weeks. She spoke with the families of her former students, whose children were dragged to Siberia for “malenkij robot”.12 Sperávia told a long story about the case of a girl belonging to the Congregation of Mary,13 about how she escaped from the Gulag.14 This was the first story she told about the escape of a person in a difficult situation through ingenuity.

‘A girl once had a large lump of coal fall on her head in Siberia. She lost consciousness and was taken home. The guard who was responsible for the camp said that this fool should be sent home. Then the girl realized that they thought she was stupid and wanted to send her home. From then on, she didn’t behave normally. When she arrived at the Hungarian border, she immediately knew she was Hungarian.’

The story of the girl who had an accident in the Gulag can be interpreted as a struggle for survival, the technique for which was the evasion of power.

From this quote, we can infer that the nun’s identity became more complex as she became more aware of the suffering of those around her. From the stories quoted above, we can also see that Speravia preferred to talk about clearly positive values, such as obedience or helping others. Here, however, she spoke of the usefulness of cunning, of the need to use deception in the case of the captive girl. This story highlights the importance Speravia placed on employing resilient techniques for self-defense, including the use of pretense and disguise.

In Hőgyész, she was successful in pushing the limits of the order. Her social sensitivity was finally recognized, and she was allowed to visit families. ‘When the superior came to Hőgyész, she asked each nuns what her problem was. I was always problem free. I discussed everything with Jesus. But then I told her: would you please let me out, that boy is starving, and I want to get together with others, there is so much misery in that big village.’ Then, she received the permit. ‘The headmistress gave me written permission. All I had to say was that I would be home for the evening prayer time, but in the afternoon I would go out to visit families’.

It should be mentioned here that she did not talk about one of the tragedies that happened that time in Hőgyész: the deportation of the Jews.¹⁵ We know that every Jewish family was taken from Hőgyész and nobody returned. We did not manage to find out what all this meant to Sperávia, how she felt about it, or to what extent this silence could be considered the result of the taboo within the order. We can only ask questions about this topic. Was she also affected by mass hypnosis, and did she accept the ‘guilty Jews’ theory? Or did she become active in connection with the post-war events because she did not do/understand anything before?

4.4. Evading Power with Feigned Naivety

While the political situation of the society became more and more complicated, she was transferred in 1947, and in her new position she obtained a certificate of religious education.16 After the nationalization of the schools (1948), she was able to teach religion for a few more months, but she was fired because she did not renounce her vocation as a nun. At that time, she was transferred to a parish, as an auxiliary person.

‘Once a guy came in. The three priests were at a meeting.—Who is the clerk here?- he asked. I said: -Me.—Sign the declaration of Mindszenty’s arrest.17—I’m just a subordinate clerk, I can’t do that, I said. Talk to the priests.’ With feigned servility, Sperávia managed to stand up for the country’s cardinal.

In 1950, she experienced the dispersal of the order in this parish, but the parish priest was afraid of harassment by the authorities and sent her away. She went to see her general and asked what to do. She got the answer that was usually given to young people at the time: go home to your parents.

Series of Deal

She tried to get a job in 1951 when her family could no longer support her. She made an appointment at the Ministry of Education, where she was not only accepted but also offered a job.

‘In January 1951, I went to the high ministry, I introduced myself, saying that I can’t hoe, I’m ashamed to beg, should I get a job somewhere to do physical work or could I teach?—What is your major?—they asked.—I said: mathematics and physics.—You will be appointed to the teacher training school in Nagykőrös immediately. They said: we ask one thing Comrade: don’t agitate for religious education.—I said: I will teach mathematics and physics. But I have a request: I was brought up and lived in such a way that I want to practice my Roman Catholic religion and go to church.—Please: Section 60 of our Constitution ensures freedom of religion.’

At first reading, Sperávia’s story may seem unbelievable, just like the stories that follow. Sperávia told a story that could not have happened to everyone. Let us look at the quote above first. We are in 1951, under the harshest communist dictatorship associated with the name of Mátyás Rákosi,18 when priests, monks and nuns were considered enemies of the regime and were already in prison or under close surveillance. Sperávia, who had chosen monasticism instead of public education three years earlier, now voluntarily went to the ministry to ask for a teaching position. This act is not really understandable from Szperávia’s previous behavior, since it not only went against the order of Cardinal József Mindszenthy (who was already in prison at that time) in 1949, but this step can also be considered as surrender. She went to look for a job in the communist ministry that was persecuting the monks and sisters. We do not get a direct answer to this step from her life story. However, it is known that there was a shortage of teachers in Hungary in the 1950s, precisely because of the dissolution of the monastic orders. And we can also assume that as a mathematics and physics teacher, she might not have been considered a dangerous element from an ideological point of view. Sperávia might have known about the shortage of teachers, and she could also have guessed that her voluntary application would even be regarded as collaboration with the communist ideology.

Based on the above, it is not so clear why she was offered a job in such a distinguished place as a teacher training college, and why she was ‘confidentially told’ that she could go to the church every day, since ‘there is freedom of religion in Hungary’. However, with this decision, Sperávia made a compromise that laid the financial foundations for her future life. Although previously she taught religion and refused to sign the document about the arrest of cardinal József Mindszenty, and in spite of the fact that she had never accepted a teaching position in a public school before, now she officially promised that she would never agitate in favor of religiosity—she would only teach mathematics and physics.

Now the only question is how she could keep the deal, and did the authorities of the system believe her?

‘I was appointed to the teacher training school in Nagykőrös. Every morning at 7 o’clock, I attended mass. Two boys came each morning—they were the inspectors. They went back to the boys’ dormitory and reported to the communist leader: except for Aunt Mária [her real name], we did not see a single boy or a single girl there. Then they accompanied me back to the teacher training school. They once said: there is a bad student in our class. We will teach him even the most difficult topics, but please make sure that at least he passes. I told them: tell me what topics you teach him. If the boy is facing me at graduation, then he should choose one from the outermost three topics on his right hand side.’

Based on the above, Sperávia also made a deal with the people who observed her and who reported on her day after day. It is also not incidental that the agreement reached in the matter of the state examination was made to help a future teacher. There was no sign of moral dilemmas in Sperávia’s narrative—the decisions seemed to be motivated by self-defense, and her aim was to secure her own position and role.

The intention of evading power also occurred in another case in Spreravia’s life. The governing Communist Party expected teachers and managers of state-owned workplaces to graduate from the so-called Marxist-Leninist university. These people usually consented to attending and graduating from this university without resistance, even though they did not agree with its content, because their career and social position was at stake. Sperávia was also enrolled in this training, and one of her teaching colleagues was her examiner. He gave her permission to use her notes on the exam. The exam was successful, to everyone’s satisfaction.

In another story, the director of the teacher training school was warned that Sperávia was going to church. Then, the principal stood up for her and, as one of his best teachers, protected her from attacks. Sperávia was not only one of the best teachers, but she was a class teacher and also organized trips and held celebrations. Apparently, in exchange for protection, she exceeded her job duties.

‘I taught math. But the class teacher’s lessons were such that I just didn’t pronounce God’s name. I told them a poem. We had Mother’s Day celebrations. I took them on a 6 day trip. We talked about everything: love and anything else that interested them. About morality, which we lack now so much.’

In the latter passage, she seems to have explained the series of deals, some of which are difficult to understand. In this part, she also implied that she always talked about religion to her students, not openly, but implicitly. In this sense, religion was part of her hidden curriculum. That is why she took on extra work, and that is why she went on excursions and talked to her students. It looks as if she wanted to say that she adapted to the system so that she could remain a nun and speak to young people about religion. In other words, she resisted the system with flexible adaptation.

4.5. The Limits of the Compromise

Sperávia made deals with students, colleagues and bosses at her workplace, at different levels and areas of life. However, there was an upper limit of this compromise. This limit is revealed in the following story. In 1953, she was taken from Nagykőrös to the ÁVÓ19 in Budapest in that infamous black car.

‘-It depends on how honest you are, when and how we let you out of here!-said the soldier. It was 8 o’clock in the morning. They asked me one question after another: Who was Bishop Péteri’s lover?—I only took exams with him, I wouldn’t even assume that he had a lover.—Am I aware that we were miseducated in Kalocsa? When we got up for Holy Communion on the first Friday, the sisters went out and had sex.—I jumped up. I object to this! They weren’t like that!—Sit down! Don’t you know where you are? Lots of cross-examinations. They knew everything about me, when I was born, where I worked, what I did.—Don’t you understand that we want to put you in a higher position?—I am satisfied, we live in respect, I feel good in Nagykőrös. They continued:—Which priest had a lover?!—this was their main topic. Who was my lover?—I said: I had an earthly love when I was young, but then nobody, because I made a decision. A man came in once, around 4 o’clock. No food, no water, no toilet, nothing. He said: Comrade, sign a declaration. Declaration, this was written on a piece of paper. Dictated by: Ádám Mária Sperávia, School Sister Named after Our Lady, she visited us on this day, we talked about this and that: the sexual life of sisters and priests.—I won’t sign this because I didn’t say this. You asked a question, but I didn’t answer!—Then just write that you were here with us on this day. If you tell anyone about this, where you were today, we will exterminate your whole family! I signed it.’

Two things can be deduced from the story of Sperávia at the ÁVÓ. On the one hand, the aim of taking her there was to scare her and warn her. This was successful. The young teacher understood how the system worked. Apparently, they did not want to arrest her and did not punish her because she stood up for herself. On the other hand, the story also shows the background of Sperávia’s adaptation and where its limits were. They could not persuade her, even with promises, to say negative things about the leaders of the church, or the superiors of her order. But this intimidation was just enough to make her feel that the deals she made in small steps were necessary.

4.6. Epilogue

Sperávia’s life between 1950 and 1989/90 was determined by the maneuvering described above. During the entire 40 years she lived in her hometown, in her retirement, she taught mathematics to children from poorer families, thus helping them to achieve further education. In 1990, when the orders were re-established, she did not go back to the community, but she received permission to remain in her home as a nun. ‘I could no longer continue where I left off 40 years ago’ she explained.

5. Conclusions

The categories selected from the life story, which are also the headings of the sub-chapters—obedience to parents, teachers, job; challenges of obedience; testing the limits of obedience; evading power; series of deal; the limit of the compromise—show how Speravia has maintained its religious identity through resilient means. Resilience, as I have argued above, results from the duality of adaptation and resistance. On this basis, Speravia’s religious identity is characterized by change–preservation.

The first chapter of Speravia’s life took place in various places of obedience. Obedience in the family and obedience to teachers, while gradually approaching the monastic vocation. Of her own free will, she became a nun, to which she remained faithful for the rest of her life. She endured the trials of obedience both inside and outside the order. She always sought to serve the interests of the order, following the orders of her superiors in spite of difficulties.

She began to push the boundaries of obedience after the war, when the suffering she saw in society led her to take action. Her social sensitivity, which she brought with her from home, was not initially supported by the order, which was committed to education, but later she was allowed to carry out individual actions. The second chapter of Speravia’s life seems to have begun at this point. She recounted several situations in her life where ingenuity in individual decisions, rather than obedience, played the leading role. I have explained this change in behavior in the subchapter on “Circumventing power through feigned naivety” or “A series of bargains”. The only way in which Speravia was able to maintain her monastic identity was by adapting, at least in appearance, to the political system of society and its atheistic ideology. Her adaptation, since she remained a nun inwardly, had clear limits. It did not attack the church, nor did it ally itself with the secret police against monks/nuns and priests. At the same time, it adapted to the atheist school system and, within limits, met its demands.

The example of Speravia shows how it was possible to be both a nun and a teacher in a political system that persecuted religion. Speravia was able to preserve her religious identity in a dynamic process of preserving change. Preserving identity could not mean remaining unchanged, because it had to adapt. And she did this, as we have seen in the presentation of his life story, through resilient means. It should be emphasized that resilience is both resistance or preservation and adaptation or change. This was the case with Speravia, who preserved her identity by changing.